halo patrick baudisch, microsoft research, ldux* & ruth rosenholtz, parc, asd april 10 th, chi...
TRANSCRIPT
halo
patrick baudisch, microsoft research, LDUX*
& ruth rosenholtz, parc, ASD
april 10th, CHI 2003
*while at xerox parc, now parc inc.
+
the problem
halo <demo>
contents
halo is not a focus plus context technique(related work)
halo is a lamp shining onto the street(designing halo)
halo is 16-33% faster than arrow-based visualization techniques (user study)
build interactive halo applications! (conclusions, lessons learned)
related work
driving directionsvs. route planning aids
overview-plus-detail focus-plus-context
pointing into off-screen space
halo design
cinematography
1. entry and exit points
2. point of viewarrow-based techniques
3. partially out of the frame halo
rings are familiar, graceful degradation
streetlamps
aura visible from distance aura is round overlapping auras aggregate fading of aura indicates distance
what we changed smooth transition sharp edge disks rings dark background light background
intrusion border
handle
space for arcs…
and for corner arcs
reserve space for content
arc length = distance
handling many objects
find best (restaurant): relevance cut-off
see all (dangers): merge arcs
app designers can use
color texture arc thickness
user study
interfacesarc/arrow fading offscale 110-300m/cmmap as backdropreadability oksame selectable
size
hypothesis:
halo faster
halo ring distance from display border
legend
pre-study to define tasks
8 participants (6 GPS users, 2 PDA users) informal interviews 10-40 minutes
4 tasks to be used in study
1. locate task
click at expected location of off-screen targets
had tosimulate on PC
2. closest task
click arrow/arc or off-screen location closest to car
3. traverse task
click all five targets so as to form shortest path
4. avoid task
click on hospital farthest away from traffic jams
procedure
12 participants within subject design, counterbalanced four training maps per interface/task,
then eight timed maps questionnaire
task completion time
Task Arrow interface Halo interface
Locate 20.1 (7.3) 16.8 (6.7)
Closest 9.9 (10.1) 6.6 (5.3)
Traverse 20.6 (14.1) 16.8 (8.7)
Avoid 9.2 (4.7) 7.7 (5.8)
0
5
10
15
20
25
Locate Closest Traverse Avoid
Arrow interface
Halo interface
33%
16%
error rateTask Arrow interface Halo interface
Locate 23.5 pixels (21.6) 28.4 pixels (33.8)
Closest 22% (42%) 21% (41%)
Traverse 97.4 pixels (94.7) 81.0 pixels (96.7)
Avoid 15% (35%) 14% (34%)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Locate Closest Traverse Avoid
Arrow interface
Halo interface
participants underestimated distances by 26% participants saw ovals (gestalt laws?) we can compensate for that: width += 35%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Locate Closest Traverse Avoid
Arrow interface
Halo interface
subjective preference
conclusions
halo 16%-33% faster than arrows– no split attention– distortion-free space– scale independent– no need to annotate distance– perceive all rings at once
[treisman & gormican] limitation: max number or rings
future work: applications where peripheral objects move and change
Thanks!
try halo: http://www.patrickbaudisch.com/projects/halo
polle zellweger, jock mackinlay,lance good, and mark stefik( “citylights” short paper talk)
scott minneman and allison woodruff
end
Extra
(a) locate (b) closest
(d) avoid(c) traverse